UK - Next the anti-smoking guardianistas will be

[buckthesystem]

Spot on Ruth, absolutely correct, and so eloquently put. To coin a cliche: "I don't like peoples' smoking, but I will fight to the death for the right for them to do it".

A lot of people here have made the mistake that the article is about "smoking". It is not at all, it is all about the emerging control-freak nanny state, as in:

"Every medieval church in England must now be defaced by large No Smoking signs, as if Cromwell's commissioners had just ordered the Ten Commandments on every wall. This is small-minded, pettyfogging bureaucracy of the sort that demands tilting gravestones to be "risk-assessed" and covered, literally, in red tape. The tally of regulatory notices required to be displayed in pubs is heading for 50, converting the nanny state into the wallpaper state".

Governments are incredibly hypocritical really, they expect people to really believe that they are truly concerned about their health and this is their motive for interfering in people's private lives, but they will never do anything that would get rid of the tobacco industry altogether because of the millions of dollars a year it provides governments in extortion taxes.

This is a case of "I didn't stand up for smokers because I don't like smoking, and smokers deserve all the discomfort they get, but when government turned on me I expected people to stand up for me. Yet they didn't, and I wonder why".

[Scarletprayers]

I fail to see the logic in wanting to resist a law that protects the health of other. I guess those who dont smoke should be punished for anothers habit. I do agree that clubs and sports bars smoking should not be prohibited. In resturants and other public places where often times children frequent, it should not be allowed. I think it should be against the law to smoke in your car with your child present, but thats just me.

So what if something else is taken away by the government...which one day will happen. This is my home...I'm just passin thru. But while I'm passing thru it would be nice if I could go to a resturant and not have to smell the stench of cigarette smoke in the air.

Well in a few years when you are told you can't preach the gospel...........remember this post!

[ted]

Spot on Ruth, absolutely correct, and so eloquently put. To coin a cliche: "I don't like peoples' smoking, but I will fight to the death for the right for them to do it".

A lot of people here have made the mistake that the article is about "smoking". It is not at all, it is all about the emerging control-freak nanny state, as in:

"Every medieval church in England must now be defaced by large No Smoking signs, as if Cromwell's commissioners had just ordered the Ten Commandments on every wall. This is small-minded, pettyfogging bureaucracy of the sort that demands tilting gravestones to be "risk-assessed" and covered, literally, in red tape. The tally of regulatory notices required to be displayed in pubs is heading for 50, converting the nanny state into the wallpaper state".

Governments are incredibly hypocritical really, they expect people to really believe that they are truly concerned about their health and this is their motive for interfering in people's private lives, but they will never do anything that would get rid of the tobacco industry altogether because of the millions of dollars a year it provides governments in extortion taxes.

This is a case of "I didn't stand up for smokers because I don't like smoking, and smokers deserve all the discomfort they get, but when government turned on me I expected people to stand up for me. Yet they didn't, and I wonder why".

Are they making it against the law to smoke tabacco. NO!!! They are making it against the law to smoke in public places. If smokers can smoke anywhere they want people who want to walk around nude should be able to do it anywhere they want....(note my extreme sarcasm).

Note that the same anti-smoking laws are starting to creep into the privacy of our own homes....

They know that an outright ban on smoking will never fly, so they pass laws which are incremental to accomplish their goals. It happened with guns, it's happening with tobacco, it's starting to happen with food, it's happening with cars, it's happening with privacy, and it will soon happen to something you feel is harmless.

Then what?

t.

[Scarletprayers]

Spot on Ruth, absolutely correct, and so eloquently put. To coin a cliche: "I don't like peoples' smoking, but I will fight to the death for the right for them to do it".

A lot of people here have made the mistake that the article is about "smoking". It is not at all, it is all about the emerging control-freak nanny state, as in:

"Every medieval church in England must now be defaced by large No Smoking signs, as if Cromwell's commissioners had just ordered the Ten Commandments on every wall. This is small-minded, pettyfogging bureaucracy of the sort that demands tilting gravestones to be "risk-assessed" and covered, literally, in red tape. The tally of regulatory notices required to be displayed in pubs is heading for 50, converting the nanny state into the wallpaper state".

Governments are incredibly hypocritical really, they expect people to really believe that they are truly concerned about their health and this is their motive for interfering in people's private lives, but they will never do anything that would get rid of the tobacco industry altogether because of the millions of dollars a year it provides governments in extortion taxes.

This is a case of "I didn't stand up for smokers because I don't like smoking, and smokers deserve all the discomfort they get, but when government turned on me I expected people to stand up for me. Yet they didn't, and I wonder why".

Are they making it against the law to smoke tabacco. NO!!! They are making it against the law to smoke in public places. If smokers can smoke anywhere they want people who want to walk around nude should be able to do it anywhere they want....(note my extreme sarcasm).

There are already cities in this country where its against the law to smoke "anywhere" even in your own home, like I said eventually this "nanny state" will find one of your cherished rights and then you'll be the one going "NOT FAIR" As for this isn't my home I'm just passing through, what a cop out. Smoking isn't illegal as you yourself said, when the government makes growing, tobacco illegal, instead of the people who are using it, then they can say they are doing something, right now its just a way to take a legal substance and tax and harass those that use it. I don't see them saying anything about alcohol, wonder why.....................as for your nude remark...........at least compare apples to apples.

[methinkshe]

Wow......food for thought, indeed!

Thanks, Buck, and Methinkshe, for highlighting the potential menace posed by such interference of the 'Nanny State', which is in full swing and advancing on our society.

No problem - glad you appreciate the warning. I learned many years ago, through firsthand experience and when things weren't half as bad as they are now in the UK, that the State's hold over our private lives, and thence our children, is frightening. I'll tell you a true succession of events that had me on my mettle 20 years ago.

My children used to play a game called "pirates" with their Dad. I think I had five or six kids at the time (I have nine, now) and they were all under 14. Anyway, "pirates" was a very physical game that involved not putting your feet on the floor, just jumping from one piece of furniture to the next until you got caught by the pirate. My kids adored the game - they'd beg their Dad to play it! It did awful things to the furniture (which wasn't up to much, anyway, so I wasn't overly careful) but gave the children a huge amount of enjoyment. Anyway, as a large family we had wooden benches around a wooden table so as to seat our family. One of my boys, aged about 6, slipped from the bench whilst trying to make a leap, and banged himself on the table somewhere in the lower torso area. I comforted him but didn't think too much about the incident until I happened to follow him to the lavatory and noticed there was blood in his urine. So I took him to see a doctor who referred him to the hospital for a kidney scan. So far, so good.. But then the examining medic began to question my son about how he was injured, and was his daddy chasing him, and did he feel frightened, and was he in fear of injury from his father - all very leading questions. At which point I surmised where the questions were leading, took huge offence, and discharged him from the hospital and went straight back to my GP to explain what I had done and why. Fortunately, I had a sympathetic GP who understood my concerns and agreed to cover the injury through urine testing. It transpired that he'd probably given his kidney a knock on the table when he slipped from the bench which had produced blood in his urine on just that single occasion. It never recurred. However, only a week later, my five year old daughter was jumping around on the arm of a sofa and literally "split the difference" to use slang terminology, causing bleeding. Back to the GP. Although the cut was tiny - no more than one-tench of an inch, because it was on a blood vessel, he couldn't staunch the bleeding so sent us to hospital. I was terrified in the light of my previous attendance at the hospital. So I prayed and prayed and the Lord was so good. My daughter was examined by a doctor, with a Christian nurse whom I knew in attendance. She had to have a single stitch (under anaesthetic) but there was absolutely no questionbing that the injury was anything but accidental, although by modern standards a social worker might very well have put son's injury and daughter's injury together and made a huge amount more of it. What is so scary is that today, I think I wouldn't have stood a chance - except by God's miraculaous intervention - and would have had Social Workers knocking on my door ready to take away my children. That's how dangerous it is to allow the State to have too much power over individual lives. In the interests of protecting the few, from the depredations of the few, the majority is incriminated unless they can prove otherwise.

Ruth

[Scarletprayers]

My son-in-law has a 7 year old daughter from a previous relationship. The child was neglected and abused, Social Services have been called numerous times on her mother. She has 3 other children...............now I don't mean this next remark as racist, because its not, its just to show how the mother behaves. My son-in-laws child is all white, one of the children is 1/2 asian, one is 1/2 hispanic and one is 1/2 black. There is always a new "boyfriend" living with her, the home was always filthy and crawling with bugs, and there was never any food, and the children had rags for clothes and toys well, forget it. We bought clothes and toys.........but they always disappeared, the child would come to my daughters house in dresses 2 sizes to small, with no pantie's on, and said thats how she went to school! The mother moved constantly and had no phone so sometimes my son-in-law would go for months and not know where his daughter was and if she was okay. Only to finally hear a little knock on their door and find her standing there, with no one in sight to see if somebody answered the door or not, of if they were leaving that child to sit on the door step.

But, Social Services (DHS) never did anything......................nothing, and told my son-in-law if he didn't return her to her mother they would have to help her prosecute HIM????

Now the mother is in jail, for armed robbery, assault, kidnapping and 3 or 4 other charges. My son-in-law went to court, and got his daughter out of foster care when he found out. First he had to get temporary custody, then full custody.......all of which cost him and my daughter huge amounts of money.........for his own child. Then DHS has been conducting interviews and home study visits to see if they are "acceptable" to have custody of her. Both of them have jobs, but work different hours so that one of them is always home with the kids, no babysitters! Never been in trouble, have excelled credit, and a lovely clean home, but they are being investigated......................makes perfect sense to me.

Oh yes, I trust the government to do the right thing.............NOT!

[methinkshe]

What I did find was this concerning not smoking in private places

protect the kiddies

Where else is it against the law not to smoke in your home?

Are you from the UK? In the UK the law against smoking encompasses ANY place of work. So, a company car is a place of work. A private home is a place of work when a government official is required to enter your home. The smoking ban applies to any place of work, and if that includes the home, because some wretched bureaucrat is entitled to admission to your home, then the long arm of the law can reach into your home and incriminate you. If someone visits a person's home as a work detail, then that person's home becomes a place of work for that visting bureaucrat. Good, isn't it? Do you still agree with the anti-smoking legislation?

Ruth

[sweetycakes]

Social workers......yes....I agree that they are very scary people.

I know that usually individual social workers are good, well-meaning people, generally speaking. I have known several myself. And I am not advocating cruelty to children.

But I think that it is the 'system' that drives them, and is behind them, which is the problem.

As someone else pointed out, they have a 'quota' which they strive to meet, which is a dangerous way to run an establishment or entity such as this (much like traffic wardens who issue parking tickets )

[Scarletprayers]

Sadly this happens more time than not. Father's rarely get the same rights a mothers, espically if they were not married. But and there is a but. If you sons name is on the birth certificate, then he does have rights. Unless he gave up those rights or has not been paying child support. If he has been then he should have some proof. This is what fathers have to go thru these days, but if they are about the welfare of thier children then it should not be a problem...but even that is not the case.

His name is on the birth certificate, he always paid his child support and kept insurance on her. Yeah read above, about "his" rights............they didn't count for anything and DHS is a mockery of the type of "justice" that governments try to pass off on people.

[Guest Biblicist]

Smoking has been banned in public places, how many dogs and cats to you know are allowed in public places?

I am fairly certain that if I tried to take my dog into McDonalds they'd have a problem with it.